Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

"You don't know marriage until you've been there!"

Wrasslin' mat of the psychological sort, for anyone wishing to argue for or against the topic in the title, branched from this thread.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

and all similar bullshit is nothing more than an attempt to avoid criticism, and in some cases to avoid responsibility.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different."
- Douglas Murray

Wrasslin' mat of the psychological sort, for anyone wishing to argue for or against the topic in the title, branched from this thread.

Meh. It's true; you don't know what it's like to be married to a person until you're married to them. You can imagine what it'd be like to be married in general, but that won't be close to what it's like being married to a specific person. But then, even after being married once, you can't imagine what it'd be like to be married to a different specific person.

Once you get to know somebody, you might have a good idea what it'd be like to be married to them, though, even without being married before.

I think what he meant to say was, "You don't know what it's like being married to my wife until you've been married to my wife."

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers

I think what he meant to say was, "You don't know what it's like being married to my wife until you've been married to my wife."

The actual argument in question goes something like this:

Me: X, Y, and Z about marriage and/or childrearing.

Married Guy Who Doesn't Like What I'm Saying: Well, you're not qualified to say because you're not married/don't have kids.

It's not an argument. It's an attempt to discredit a position without actually presenting any evidence. It's literally a classic textbook ad hominem. "He has the quality of not being married. Therefore, he is wrong."

An ad hominemargument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man&quot consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, (He's Not Married, He Doesn't Have Children) rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

To be fair, the OP's statement is too absolute, and therefore you can easily say it's wrong.

I do think that someone who is married can speak better to the issues of single life than an unmarried (as in never been married) person can speak to issues of married life. That doesn't mean a single person is incapable of making correct observations and assertions about married life. But when the same single person starts painting in broad strokes, making absolute assertions with regard to all married people, that's where the problem is.

As we do with arguments against theism, the most responsible (and rational) thing to do is point out the flaws of the absolute agrument.

I think what he meant to say was, "You don't know what it's like being married to my wife until you've been married to my wife."

The actual argument in question goes something like this:

Me: X, Y, and Z about marriage and/or childrearing.

Married Guy Who Doesn't Like What I'm Saying: Well, you're not qualified to say because you're not married/don't have kids.

It's not an argument. It's an attempt to discredit a position without actually presenting any evidence. It's literally a classic textbook ad hominem. "He has the quality of not being married. Therefore, he is wrong."

An ad hominemargument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man&quot consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, (He's Not Married, He Doesn't Have Children) rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Yeah. I read the original posts. I was trying to point out that he was making another logical fallacy, which was making a generalization about knowledge of an abstract concept (marriage) by equating it with a highly-variable living condition (living in a married-like state with a single person). So the most he could claim was that we don't know what it's like being married to a specific person -- namely, his wife.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers

I do think that someone who is married can speak better to the issues of single life than an unmarried (as in never been married) person can speak to issues of married life. That doesn't mean a single person is incapable of making correct observations and assertions about married life. But when the same single person starts painting in broad strokes, making absolute assertions with regard to all married people, that's where the problem is.

This is all fine. If there's a problem with an argument, you should address the problems in the argument. There's never a reason to resort to an ad hominem.

The reason this topic is still flying around is that you're still sticking to an irrational objection. (Again, an ad hominem isn't technically an argument. It's just a fallacy and is worth absolutely zero.) If we're still arguing about whether theists and atheists should make babies, let's keep arguing about that. It's a worthwhile topic. Just don't try to tar me with an ad hominem to make your position look better. If you've got a good argument, it will stand on its own. I mean, let's be honest, you don't have any more experience with how to handle children in a theist/atheist marriage than I do. Your kids aren't old enough to understand any of it, so you have no evidence that your system will work.

Quote:

As we do with arguments against theism, the most responsible (and rational) thing to do is point out the flaws of the absolute agrument.

I assume we're still talking about the same thing. Let's look at my broad strokes and absolute arguments.

hambydammit wrote:

Having properly lubed, here goes. This is exactly why it pisses me off that people go off half cocked having kids before they've figured out the really, really important questions that could literally make or break their marriage! More than a few marriages have ended because one spouse was more religious than the other. This is the kind of thing that can lead to years of bitterness and resentfulness.

Emphasis mine.

hambydammit wrote:

How much of a win is it for you if the kids don't go to church, and your wife is bitter and resentful about you forcing your will on her? How much of a win is it for your wife if she goes to church with the kids, and you contradict everything the church says?

Two questions. No absolutes.

hambydammit wrote:

I'm not saying it's a no-win situation, but by popping out the kids before asking the questions, you've made it a lot harder than it could have been.

No absolutes there.

Quote:

Look, it's probably not going to be a pretty situation, regardless of how you slice it, but the first thing you need to do is go on a factual offensive, before the question comes up. Religious indoctrination happens young, and theism is dangerous to young minds. There are hundreds of pages of resources here that explain this fact in great scientific detail. I'd suggest that you become very familiar with them, and make sure that your wife understands very clearly just how much potential harm she can do to her children by sending them to church before they've learned how to think critically.

Do you disagree that religious indoctrination happens young, or that theism is dangerous to young minds? I think there's enough material on RRS to back up these statements, but if you do disagree, I can document it fully.

hambydammit wrote:

The second thing you can do is prepare your children now. Start mentioning god in the same sentence as Santa and The Tooth Fairy. Better yet, tell your children NOW that Santa and The Tooth Fairy are fairy tales, kind of like a game, and that they get to pretend that Santa is bringing them presents. Don't give your children the impression that some silly ideas are true now, and then expect them to figure out that god is not.

Didn't say "must do." Said "can do." Not absolute.

Quote:

Start right now teaching your children how to think. Give them simple logical problems to work out. If X isn't so, then Y cannot be so. If X is true, then Y must be true. Do it daily.

Remember, well over 90% of people who adhere to a religion in the U.S. adhere to the religion they were raised in. It may be a tough fight with your wife, and it may end poorly, but you brought two young minds into the world, and you're responsible for making sure they're prepared. If you know that religion is wrong, you are responsible for your own inaction if you decide to let them go and they become Christians.

Do you disagree that over 90% of people who adhere to a religion in the U.S. adhere to the one they were raised in? I can back that up.

Notice the words, "may be." Not absolute.

It seems fair enough to make the absolute statement that he brought minds into the world and is responsible for them.

That's my whole post. Not a single absolute. Would you like to go ahead and admit that A) your ad hom isn't a valid argument and B) You got your panties in a bunch because what I said is threatening to your conception of your own marriage?

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. We're all adults here, and nobody expects everyone to agree with everyone all the time. Just don't expect to get let off the hook when you make an emotional response instead of a valid argument. Atheists have irrational responses, too. It's part of being human. If you want to return to the question of atheists and theists making babies and raising them, let's do it, but let's try to leave the emotion out of it, ok?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Do you disagree that over 90% of people who adhere to a religion in the U.S. adhere to the one they were raised in? I can back that up.

I found something to poke Hamby with. hehe So here it goes. *poke, poke*

CNN wrote:

More than one-quarter of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another religion or no religion at all, the survey found. Factoring in moves from one stream or denomination of Protestantism to another, the number rises to 44 percent.

I really don't see it, sorry. I've never been married, certainly haven't had any kids, but I have been a kid growing up in a home with happily married parents. I've been a kid visiting the homes of children with unhappily married parents and divorced parents. I have married friends and friends with kids and divorced friends with kids. To say that I can't pick up some amount of understanding of these situations without personally experiencing them--in fact to say that it is opaque to me--is simply arrogant. Any evidence for the claim is by its very nature anecdotal. If your situation truly is unique--say, you're married to a bigfoot or your kids mysteriously came out half-human/half ocelot--I'll cede the point that I cannot understand. But if you're married to a human, then your own opinions about the nature of marriage and child-rearing are just as influenced by your experience of those things as derived from the culture as mine are. They aren't wrong. They're just not special.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell

I'm familiar with that article, but I didn't exactly think of it when I wrote my post earlier.

Note: More than one-quarter of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another religion or no religion at all, the survey found. Factoring in moves from one stream or denomination of Protestantism to another, the number rises to 44 percent.

So, the recent trend is that around 75% of Christians stay where they are or stay Christian but change denominations, down from around 90% in the 50s and 60s. I love the rise of atheism, and am happy to admit that the war on theism is causing damage. My 90% observation is outdated, but represents a long and glorious history of conformism. Even so, I'm happy to amend my statement to: "Even with recent trends towards increasing secularism, around 75% of people in the U.S. stay in their parents' religion. This isn't even addressing latent anger issues that might exist in children who were raised Christian and eventually left."

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

This is one of those nasty things nobody wants to talk about. When I was married, I thought my situation was special, and that I would buck the statistics because of how smart I was, and how much in love we were. Curiously, we divorced for exactly the reasons the stats predicted, at almost exactly the median for length of marriage.

One of the best ways to get a person's logic circuits to start failing is to get them to fall in love. Over and over, studies have demonstrated that love is nature's way of getting us to make babies even though it isn't always the most logical thing to do. Both Gierj and Tilberian have given us plenty of evidence of this, talking about people's 'individual' experiences, and how every marriage is unique. Nobody likes it when they're told that statistically, they are doing something illogical.

In a rather ironic twist, the people best equipped to make statements about marriage are the ones who don't happen to be in love at the time. I can't find exactly the article I was looking for, but there was one study that showed a marked decrease in reasoning skills in individuals who were "in love" as compared to those who weren't. In any case, here's one of the papers addressing possible reasons for irrational behavior and beliefs by those in love.

"The scientific definition of love is "having stimulation that one desires" (5). Recent research by two British neurologists concludes that love is linked to certain brain activities. By conducting tests using a magnetic resonance imager, the scientists measured brain activity in 17 people while they were viewing a picture of their loved one, and while they were viewing a photo of a friend of the same sex as their lover. When the individuals see the picture of the person they love, clear activity occurs in four regions of the brain that were not active when the image of the friend was present. The media insula, which is responsible for instinctual feelings, and the anterior cingulate, which acts in response to euphoria-inducing drugs, such as cocaine, are the two areas of the cortex stimulated by pictures of a lover. The striatum, that is activated when we are rewarded and the prefrontal cortex also increase their activity when shown the same picture. Interestingly, the prefrontal cortex is an area within the brain that is often overactive in the brains of the depressed (1). Perhaps this is why people in love often act out of character, like the characters in the movies.

Or maybe the reason people in love act fanatical is because of the decrease in serotonin associated with being in love. While studying obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), Donatella Marazziti discovered that levels of serotonin are especially low in people with the disorder. Marazziti hypothesized that people in love often experience feelings and symptoms similar to those with OCD, such as uncontrollable thoughts. She then proceeded to test the level of serotonin in the brains of people in love, and discerned that the level of serotonin within the brain of person in love depletes to the same point as a person with OCD (about 40% less). She also found that people with a low presence of serotonin in the brain are more susceptible to fall in love and engage in sexual activity. Because levels of serotonin cannot be measured within the brain precisely and the sample used for this research was small and mostly female, Marazziti's research is controversial, but noteworthy, nonetheless. Perhaps the idea the idea that love makes people crazy, which is mirrored by Hollywood, has a little truth to it after all (2)."

This is exactly why it pisses me off that people go off half cocked having kids before they've figured out the really, really important questions that could literally make or break their marriage!

This sounds pretty absolute within the context of the OP. As written, you make it sound like everyone who gets married fails to answer the big questions before jumping in. Maybe you meant to say "some people...".

hambydammit wrote:

How much of a win is it for you if the kids don't go to church, and your wife is bitter and resentful about you forcing your will on her? How much of a win is it for your wife if she goes to church with the kids, and you contradict everything the church says?

Two questions. No absolutes.

True, but an absolute is very much implied.

hambydammit wrote:

I'm not saying it's a no-win situation, but by popping out the kids before asking the questions, you've made it a lot harder than it could have been.

Yes you are. That's what your two questions implied.

hambydammit wrote:

Do you disagree that religious indoctrination happens young,

Nope. I don't disagree at all.

hambydammit wrote:

or that theism is dangerous to young minds?

Theism can be dangerous to young minds. But I think you'll find many atheists who were raised in a certain religion but never bought into it. That's the difference between weak theism and fundamentalist theism. I would hypothesize that children raised in weak-theistic households (like I was) are more likely to not buy in to religion.

hambydammit wrote:

Do you disagree that over 90% of people who adhere to a religion in the U.S. adhere to the one they were raised in? I can back that up.

Already debunked.

hambydammit wrote:

It seems fair enough to make the absolute statement that he brought minds into the world and is responsible for them.

Along with the mother of his children, yes.

hambydammit wrote:

That's my whole post. Not a single absolute.

Yeah, there were a couple in there.

hambydammit wrote:

Would you like to go ahead and admit that A) your ad hom isn't a valid argument

Of course the ad hom argument in its strictest sense isn't valid. I think I clarified my position in my earlier post in this thread.

hambydammit wrote:

and B) You got your panties in a bunch because what I said is threatening to your conception of your own marriage?

Who's got their panties in a bunch?

Nothing you've said is threatening to my conception of my marriage. My wife and I did have the Big Conversation before we got married, about expectations, kids, religious beliefs...we knew full well what we were getting into. Eight years on and we're still happy.

hambydammit wrote:

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. We're all adults here, and nobody expects everyone to agree with everyone all the time. Just don't expect to get let off the hook when you make an emotional response instead of a valid argument. Atheists have irrational responses, too. It's part of being human. If you want to return to the question of atheists and theists making babies and raising them, let's do it, but let's try to leave the emotion out of it, ok?

When did I get all emotional on you, Brother Hamby? If you want to return to the question of atheists and theists making babies and raising them, let's do it, but let's try to leave the strawman out of it, OK?

This sounds pretty absolute within the context of the OP. As written, you make it sound like everyone who gets married fails to answer the big questions before jumping in. Maybe you meant to say "some people..."

I admit I don't know how to do this kind of argument because it isn't an argument. In a post containing non-absolute qualifiers in pretty much every paragraph, you're going to assert that this -- " This is exactly why it pisses me off that people go off half cocked" -- is proof that I'm talking about everybody? I'm sorry, I'd rather fight with wet spaghetti at ten paces. It would be more productive. If you're bound and determined to write off my opinion because it's "absolute" then go right ahead. I'm not going to bicker.

Quote:

hambydammit wrote:

Do you disagree that over 90% of people who adhere to a religion in the U.S. adhere to the one they were raised in? I can back that up.

Already debunked.

Again, that very same article clearly shows that approximately 75% of Americans remain the same kind of theist (either staying in the denomination or changing denominations) as their parents. And this is noteworthy because it's a decline. That's why the article was written. If your argument is that I'm wrong because nowadays, only 3 out of 4 people stay in the religion of their parents, I feel pretty confident with my position. Also notice that not all 25% (I know it said more than 75%. I'm ballparking because 74.2% is 75 for a conversation about this sort of thing.) left religion. Many moved from one religion to another. This means that significantly more than 75% of people raised theist stay theist. (In the U.S.)

"More than one-quarter of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another religion or no religion at all, the survey found. Factoring in moves from one stream or denomination of Protestantism to another, the number rises to 44 percent."

Quote:

Nothing you've said is threatening to my conception of my marriage. My wife and I did have the Big Conversation before we got married, about expectations, kids, religious beliefs...we knew full well what we were getting into. Eight years on and we're still happy.

Like I said, I want your children to grow up happy and atheist. I need to point out that (if memory serves) you're not in the U.S. (Netherlands?) and your children will not be growing up in the same religiously charged society as children here. In a society that already views religion skeptically, it stands to reason that raising a child in a mildly theist situation would have less effect than in the U.S. I'm happy to revise my bitch-out to specifically target parents in highly theist countries, like the person who originally asked the question.

Quote:

Of course the ad hom argument in its strictest sense isn't valid. I think I clarified my position in my earlier post in this thread.

As long as it's clarified to the position of that statement having no weight in any discussion, I'm happy.

Quote:

When did I get all emotional on you, Brother Hamby? If you want to return to the question of atheists and theists making babies and raising them, let's do it, but let's try to leave the strawman out of it, OK?

Ok. So far, your argument seems to be:

1) I take back my ad hominem.

2) My kids are 3 and 18 months, and they're not theists.

3) You were wrong about 90%. Only 75% stay in their parent's religion in the U.S.

Not a particularly strong argument that it's ok to raise a child in a mixed theist/atheist marriage. Just to be clear, I got a hold of the Losing My Religion data and had a good look at it. Among all young adults, 17% actually left religion entirely. Ok, fine. I happily revise my statement to read: "In America, 83% of people who are raised theist will stay theist, with approximately 75% staying in their parents' specific religion, if not particular denomination." This study, by the way, did not differentiate between atheist/theist parents and theist/theist parents. It only dealt with religious practice. If the kid went to church, the kid counted as religious, regardless of whether one parent disapproved of the religiosity.

Furthermore, I'd like to quote the authors themselves with regard to how much weight these numbers should be given:

Young adults are vastly more likely to curb their attendance at religious services than to alter how important they say religion is in their life or to drop their religious affiliation altogether. While attendance wanes for nearly 70 percent of these individuals, only about one fifth exhibit diminished religious salience, and even fewer – about one in six – disaffiliate from religion.

This is why I don't trust newspaper articles. They tend to leave out important details in the quest to get shocking headlines.

Furthermore, divorce rates for interfaith marriages are terrible. "Vera Lawlor, from The Bergen Record in Hakensack, NJ., wrote that inter-faith marriages have a failure rate that is 50% higher than same-faith marriages. She does not cite a source for this datum. Since the rate for all marriages is on the order of 50%, this would imply an almost 75% failure rate for inter-faith marriages - 3 chances out of 4. 5 ... Egon Mayer, a professor at Brooklyn College, published another study confirming that inter-faith couples experience higher divorce rates."

There isn't much data available for specifically atheist/theist marriages, but they are included as interfaith. The expected conclusion is that atheist/theist marriages would have a lower rate of divorce than theist/theist interfaith, and higher than atheist/atheist. To be specific, we know that the order goes like this, from highest to lowest:

1) Theist/theist, interfaith.

2) Theist/theist, same faith.

3) Atheist/atheist.

It isn't much of a stretch to postulate that atheist/theist marriages would be less stable than atheist/atheist and more stable than theist/theist interfaith. (Oh, the divorce rate in America for atheist/atheist marriages is 21%. That's the lowest of all possible arrangements.)

So, just from these two points that I have made, I would say that there's still damn strong evidence that raising a child in a theist environment is dangerous to their atheism:

1) Almost all who are raised religious stay religious.

2) Theist/atheist families are less stable than atheist/atheist.

I will add to this case. In America, when there is a divorce, the mother overwhelmingly becomes the primary guardian if custody is not equally shared. Women, as I'm sure you know, are more likely to be religious than men in America. Couple this with a higher divorce rate, and you get a much higher likelihood that a child raised in a theist/atheist home will end up with the theist mother.

Incidentally, it's also pretty well documented that among marriages with children, childraising issues were a major factor in the divorce approximately 1/3 of the time. How much this information means to this discussion, I can't say, but it does raise the eyebrows a little.

So, judging from the actual numbers, I think I'm making a very strong case that whether or not people think their marriage is perfectly stable, especially while children are young and the love-effect is still dulling critical thinking skills, the data backs up my statement that atheist/theist homes are a generally poor idea if the question is, "Will the children turn out atheist?"

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin